Magmatism at Passive Margins: Effects of Depth‐Dependent Wide Rifting and Lithospheric Counterflow
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Rifted passive margins exhibit a large variety in the timing, distribution, and amount of magmatism. The factors controlling magmatism during rifted margin formation, remain, however, incompletely understood, partly owing to the complex rifting styles. In this study, we use 2‐Dimensional numerical models to investigate the effects of depth‐dependent wide rifting and lithospheric counterflow on magmatism during rifted margin formation. Results show that a strong crust promotes narrow margins with a sharp transition to normal thickness oceanic crust whereas a weak crust promotes depth‐dependent wide rifting, with preferential removal of mantle lithosphere, leading to formation of wide margins with over‐thickened (>18 km) igneous crust in the distal margin. Counterflow of depleted lithospheric mantle, in contrast, may delay syn‐rift magmatism, and result in exhumed a‐magmatic continental mantle at narrow margins. The combination of wide rifting and lithospheric counterflow results in magma‐poor wide margins, with in some cases a transition to excess magmatic activity at breakup. Our models provide an explanation for the contrasting magmatic productivity at narrow and wide rifted margins, such as observed in the Lofoten‐Vesterålen, Newfoundland, Kwanza Basin, and Orange Basin margins.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".